Apple rejected iPad app for using pinch to expand gesture

Apple refused to accept one iPad application to its App Store until the proprietary "pinch to expand" multi-touch gesture, which is found in Apple's own Photos application, was removed, a developer has told AppleInsider.

Scott Sykora and Eugene Kaneko are the creators of Web Albums HD (App Store, $2.99), an iPad application that accesses photos saved to Google's Picasa Web albums. The software was initially rejected from the App Store, Sykora said, because it employed the pinch to expand gesture to "peek" at photo albums, in the same manner as Apple's own native Photos application for the iPad.

Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves. The feature was even demonstrated in a promotional video the developers created for Web Albums HD through the iPad SDK.

"When we submitted it to Apple, we were stunned by their response," Sykora said. "Apparently the tap and pinch to expand is only for native Apple apps."

When the application was initially rejected from the App Store, Apple sent a letter to the developers noting that the pinch to expand feature is "associated solely with Apple applications." The form letter-like e-mail also mistakenly named another application, leading Sykora to assume that Web Albums HD is not the only software that has been rejected for its use of pinch to expand.

"After a few vague follow-up e-mails, we learned the 'update appropriately' meant removing the feature completely," he said. "We removed the pinch expand, leaving just the tap to expand. We were approved but ended up having an inferior product."

In addition, earlier this week, Instapaper and Tumblr developer Marco Arment noted that Apple's own App Store application, iBooks, relies on a number of private APIs not available to third-party software developers. He said his software cannot have a "true brightness control," even though it is featured in the iBooks application.

"This app's undocumented API use wouldn't pass the App Store submission process, yet developers need to compete with it for App Store attention," Arment wrote. "One of the great potential failures of an app-review system is inconsistent or unfair enforcement of the rules."

Criticism of the App Store and Apple's strict control of it has been a constant topic of scrutiny among developers, users and pundits alike. Last summer, stories of long delays and a lack of communication on Apple's part inspired Apple executive Phil Schiller to personally respond to some pundits and developers. The public moves were uncharacteristic of Apple, which is notorious for being a quiet, secretive company. But as bad publicity continued to grow, Schiller felt compelled to personally intervene.

Earlier this year, Apple streamlined its review process for the App Store, resulting in much faster turnaround times for developers. But the launch of the iPad has led to an influx of applications being submitted to the App Store, with developer interest nearly tripling after the product was announced in late January.

Sykora said he is hopeful that Apple can improve its approval process in the future to communicate better with developers such as himself when they are waiting for the App Store approval process.

In addition, earlier this week, Instapaper and Tumblr developer Marco Arment noted that Apple's own App Store application, iBooks, relies on a number of private APIs not available to third-party software developers. He said his software cannot have a "true brightness control," even though it is featured in the iBooks application.

Wasn't this one of the things Microsoft were getting in trouble for (the idea that there were hidden API's that things like Microsoft Office could use, but others couldn't). I might be wrong, but I thought that was part of the anti-trust ruling?

"...employed the pinch to expand gesture to "peek" at photo albums..."

I think the objection has to do with what the gesture is used for, not that it is used. (Its hard to tell for sure from the article - it starts saying it is used for one thing then another then saying the letter said only Apple could use it. WTF?

This is a rare case where I actually side with the developer. Apple should *encourage* the use of consistent gestures to perform similar tasks throughout all apps running on the iDevices. It makes the platform better. This would be like saying "you can't use command-C to copy text -- that's only for Apple apps!"

Wasn't this one of the things Microsoft were getting in trouble for (the idea that there were hidden API's that things like Microsoft Office could use, but others couldn't). I might be wrong, but I thought that was part of the anti-trust ruling?

If I'm right, why are Apple allowed to get away with it?

Because Apple is not a monopolist, that's why. There is no market where Apple has as high of a marketshare as Microsoft has with Windows. Not even remotely close.

This is a common misunderstanding of anti-trust laws. Things that are illegal for monopolists can be perfectly legal for everyone else. The purpose of anti-trust law is not to mindlessly enforce some grade-school concept of "fairness". It's to mindfully enforce an econ grad-school concept of fairness.

Just like before, the APIs are probably not ready for primetime, once Apple feels that the APIs are good and ready I'm sure they'll release them.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.

This does seem odd that Apple would prevent developers from using a gesture that can only be used on iPhone, according to the patents they sent out to HTC. Seems very... childish to prevent any other developers from using a feature of the phone.

Just like before, the APIs are probably not ready for primetime, once Apple feels that the APIs are good and ready I'm sure they'll release them.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.

That's not the issue. The developer didn't use the private API calls, they coded their own for achieving the same functionality. Apple blocked it based on the behavior being the same as what is associated with their own apps.